Core Pacific City (Living Mall) Case: Examine Chu Ya-Hu’s interrogation footage on Jul. 1

Ko Wen-je stated:
“I am not fighting for myself — I am fighting for my city government team. During our public service, we were bold in reform, unafraid to act or speak out. Most importantly, we were clean and honest. Yet, we have become targets of judicial persecution.”

“To my former city government team and their families, who have endured enormous psychological pressure — I know it’s been tough. If there is still hope in a democratic society, if there remains any trust in judicial fairness, I appeal to everyone who’s still working within this system: if you still have any conscience, I urge you to preserve a space for judicial independence in this case. I also sincerely apologize to the families of the team members who were implicated — you’ve suffered because of me.”

Chu Ya-Hu was the first defendant to plead guilty.
During cross-examination on May 13, his statements showed clear inconsistencies compared to his original transcript. As a result, the defense attorney requested a review of the interrogation footage. The highlighted summary is as the following:

1. Chu Ya-Hu testified that the Winking Group donated NT$2.1 million in the year of 2020 purely was a political contribution. He explained that this was because Ko Wen-je had founded a political party, Taiwan People’s Party, and the group wanted to express gratitude to Ko for following a corrective order issued by the Control Yuan in 2017 — which restored the floor area ratio of the Taipei Dome project from 392%, as approved by former Mayor Hau Lung-bin’s administration, back to 560%, thereby returning to them their rightful interests. Zhu stated, “This was a legal political donation.” However, the prosecutor did not believe him.

2. The prosecutor didn’t believe him, so they kept pressing and badgering him repeatedly: “When you say ‘gratitude’ or ‘trying to curry favor,’ doesn’t that essentially mean ‘bribery’?”

3. Chu Ya-Hu firmly denied it. But the prosecutor continued, “Well, take a guess — could it possibly be?” Zhu, uncertain, responded, “Maybe… possibly…” And just like that, the NT$2.1 million became “Chu Ya-Hu admits to bribery.”

4. But what was the purpose of the alleged bribe?
By the time Winking Group donated the NT$2.1 million, it had already been more than two years since the floor area ratio for the Taipei Dome had been restored to 560%. Why would they make the donation then? At this point, Prosecutor Kuo Chien-Yu suggested, “Maybe this was an advance payment? Then it wouldn’t have anything to do with the 560%, right? And considering how massive the Taipei Dome’s potential gains were, how could it possibly be just NT$2.1 million?” 

5. Chu Ya-Hu said, “Yes, the gains were indeed enormous.” 
His statement then shifted to: “Yes, it was an advance payment.” 
The prosecutor followed up, “An advance for what? Was it for the 120,284.39 square meters (which translates to roughly a 678% floor area ratio)?” 
At first, Zhu still said no — the timeline didn’t even match. But the prosecutor kept pressing and hinted at consequences: 
“You were allowed to go home smoothly after the last two interrogations. If you tell the truth now, I hope you can go home just as smoothly…” 

6. The prosecutor then brought up a lunch meeting between Ko Wen-je and legislator Ying Hsiao-wei on March 10, 2020, claiming the timing was “highly consistent” and “critical.” He said:
“The prosecutor believes the NT$2.1 million was for the 120,284 square meters. What do you think?”

7. Chu Ya-Hu then admitted: “Yes, it is absolutely related.”
The prosecutor pressed further:
“Then who would be the one taking care of the Taipei Dome project? There has to be someone, right? Otherwise, wouldn’t it be very strange?”

8. After over ten hours of exhausting interrogation — and through interpretations from Chu Ya-Hu’s lawyer — Zhu finally gave the answer the prosecutor was clearly hoping for: 
“Ko Wen-je.” 

Postscript:
After handling this case, Prosecutor Kuo Chien-Yu was promoted to the position of judge. However, after the interrogation footage of Chu Ya-Hu was reviewed on July 1, 2025, Kuo was accused of “using speculation as evidence,” “drawing the target after shooting the arrow,” “violating the objectivity required of prosecutors by turning personal assumptions into the defendant’s testimony,” and continuously distorting witnesses’ memories and facts. The case involved improper interrogation practices, constituting a serious breach of prosecutorial ethics.